Green shoots: you'd better be grateful!

by Jerome a Paris
Mon May 18th, 2009 at 03:33:47 AM EST


COULD there be a better time to be a bank? If you have capital and courage, the markets are packed with opportunities--as they well understand at Goldman Sachs, which is once again filling its boots with risk. Governments are endorsing high leverage and guaranteeing huge parts of the financial system, so you get to keep the profits and palm off the losses on the taxpayer. The threat of nationalisation has receded, reinvigorating the banks' share prices. Money is cheap, deposits plentiful and borrowers desperate, so new lending promises handsome margins. Back before the crash, banks' profits just looked big; today they might even be real.

The bonanza is intentional. Governments and regulators want the banks to make profits so that they regain their health faster after roughly $3 trillion of write-downs. It is part of the monstrous bargain that bankers have extracted from the state (see our special report this week). Taxpayers have poured trillions of dollars into institutions that most never knew they were guaranteeing. In return, economies look as if they have been spared a collapse in payment systems and credit flows that would probably have caused a depression.


Never mind that it's rather 13 trillion rather than 3 trillion, the idea that the worst of the crisis is over seems to be taking hold (including in recommended diaries here on dKos) - and now we get rather cocky articles, as the one above, which is the lead editorial from this week's Economist, the main publication of the global elite, explaining that the bank bailouts, lopsided as they were (and it is acknowledged openly) were a good thing because the alternative could have been worse.

In other words:

 


we raped you, but don't complain because the alternative was to kill you

Mafia-style racketeering, openly lauded. Nice job if you can get it.

(And if you think this is hyperbole, just read the bits I bolded above again. This is not a socialist DFH writing: it's the Economist, stating that as a matter of fact, and as the thing that had to be done)

Never mind that depression is still ahead of us. The Cassandras are, once again, being mocked (and, in a troubling development, a lot of the left is part of the mockers, in a misguided attempt to shield Obama).

But the result is that finance has not been reformed in any meaningful way. More worrying, the debate on inequality and taxes (you know, the only known way to reduce inequality by eliminating incentives for those at the top to try to accumulate an ever growing share of the pie) basically never happened. The winner-tale-all system that brought us the crisis (including market-based pensions, profit driven healthcare, oligarch-owned and financial "analyst"-driven media, money-controlled politicians) is safe, now that the crisis is over.

Stock markets are going up, so all is well (hey, lots of people have 401ks or market-based pensions - never mind that with $3 trillion + ongoing contributions you could build a rather solid public pensions/health care system...).

And anyway, bankers will be bankers, and if they did stupid things it's only because regulators (stupid, underpaid bureaucrats who could never have been hired by private-sector, merit-loving institutions) did not prevent it - so this crisis, if anybody is to blame (remember, as Greenspan says, crises are inevitable, one in a while) was basically government's fault.

And the alternative is  - gasp - socialism, and we can't have that, as Stalin proved (there is nothing - absolutely nothing! - between Stalin and the current financial capitalism, not even the system that prevailed in the US from 1935 to the 1980s)

Germany is having a bigger recession than the US, so so-called virtue makes you lose out on the good times, and be hurt just as bad in the bad times, so why bother?

:: ::

If this sounds like the "debate" on torture, it's no surprise. Nothing short of outright capitulation to the most extremist agenda of the right will do. Talking of an ongoing crisis is like not waterboarding: evil. Talking of accountability in either case is: irresponsible.

Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/16/732205/-Green-shoots:-youd-better-be-grateful!

and also inspired by NBBooks' most recent diary.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat May 16th, 2009 at 02:06:27 PM EST
Sigh...

There was a chance to fix the system, it was blown, and instead ordinary people were even further plundered.

How did it come to this?

:: ::

Actually, I've been thinking about that bank thing myself, how right now would be a very nice time to start a little bank, with all the small and midsize competent companies desperate for cash. With only a single office and the rest online, costs should be low enough to give depositors the highest interests in the country, and still give you ok margins.

I can already imagine the online commercials, with images switching between a youngish looking banker partying, surrounded by hot babes and spraying Cristal everywhere to pounding music, then a very ordinary looking fellow in a grey suit and with glasses, sitting in a very conservative, almost barren room, discretly pushing buttons on a computer or taking notes, in complete silence - back to the partyer - the boring one - partyer - boring one. Screen fades to black. Silver antiqua letters appear:

"Deposit your money in the most boring bank in the country, with the highest interest."

Text goes away and screen goes black again. New silver letters:

"XYZ bank. When you're looking for peace of mind."

:: ::

So, uh, anyone got 10 million euros of seed capital lying around?

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sat May 16th, 2009 at 05:44:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... the system ... at least in the US?

Here in the US we are into the first year of what would in any event require at least six in terms of building a coalition to attack the problem.

As long as the boring business Republicans and "Liberal" Hedge Fund Democrats agree on the basic consensus, that is a blocking group until the Hedge Fund Democrats are taken out.


Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat May 16th, 2009 at 06:49:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe it's my naievty and lack of understanding of the US system, but wouldn't Obama get all the popular support he would ever dream of if he said something like this in his state of the union speech:

  1. We're in deep shit.

  2. The banks need to operate if we're to get out of it.

  3. Money need to go into the banks, but you'll be compensated for that, dear taxpayers.

  4. Because of that we will temporarily nationalise all unhealthy banks. They will be privatized when they're healthy again and we've made our money back.

  5. We will create regulation to make sure we don't get into this shit ever again.

  6. And yeah, you've been massiveley screwed by carrion who put us all in this shit, and they're still gorging themselves on your money, and on your childrens future.

  7. [insert]Examples of how the guys at the banks or AIG enriched themselves monstrously while blowing a $13 trillion hole in the very fabric of the universe.[/insert]


Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sat May 16th, 2009 at 07:04:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
However its not the broader public that the blocking minority in the Senate is afraid of.

Within two weeks, with Fox Noise leading and the rest of the corporate media acting as a mindless amplifier, the message would be reframed and re-interpreted until for a majority of the population in states with 30% of the population, sufficient to maintain 41 votes in defense of a Senate filibuster, its proof that Obama is a class warfare socialist.

And rather than going toe to toe with the Senate and duking it out, the current sham-progressive caucus in the House will hide behind that filibuster to agree to "compromises" that gut any policy response.

What is required to crack the opposition from the Senate is a reformist House with its back up, snarling and snapping with bared teeth at the Millionaire's club.

And retrofitting a backbone and teeth into the current faux-progressive caucus requires some faux-progressives getting shown the door in primaries in safe Democratic districts.


Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat May 16th, 2009 at 07:54:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And retrofitting a backbone and teeth into the current faux-progressive caucus requires some faux-progressives getting shown the door in primaries in safe Democratic districts.

By the time of the mid-terms this could be a real possibility.  They would need funding.  On-line groups could help.  It would also be important to run some strong opponents in senatorial primaries.  If a 60 seat majority does you no good, what good is it and why not risk it for something better.  A couple or three wins for progressive Democratic new senators could be just the shot across the bow that the conserv-dems need to get their attention.  The polls and the mood of the country could be telling them something also by then.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer at eurotrib.com) on Sat May 16th, 2009 at 09:10:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Only trouble is, I doubt you have six years now.  Besides, Obama could have put the banks into receivership without waiting for Congress.
by tjbuff (timhess@adelphia.net) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 09:19:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
tjbuff:
Obama could have put the banks into receivership without waiting for Congress
The FDIC is on a steady diet of up to 4 failed banks per week...

The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 09:22:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Let's not forget OTS. Newspapers haven't. Like butter: Squeezed between the trustee's sales (e.g. what's left of print classified sales, 15pp solid, WaPo, 13 May) you may spot public notice of seizure addressed to creditors.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Tue May 19th, 2009 at 12:41:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That is a problem, but you do what you can do.

What Obama could have done without waiting for the House is neither here nor there ... he is, after all, another Hedge Fund Democrat, and he won't go beyond the conventional wisdom without being pushed.


Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 10:10:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Starvid:
Because of that we will temporarily nationalise all unhealthy banks. They will be privatized when they're healthy again and we've made our money back.
Bad framing.

"The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation will take over the banks to make sure that deposits and payment systems continue to function" would be the proper framing.

The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 05:42:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Always think of the children!

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
by martingale on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 06:20:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Widders and orphans need the banking payments system to continue to function, and the government is acting to guarantee that it will continue to function.


Utsukushikereba sore de ii
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 10:12:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
He!

When I become a politician I'll hire you as my spin doctor (and I'll get some IT consultants to remove every single thing I've ever written online about Rhodesia)...

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 09:06:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Migeru:
will take over the banks at risk of insolvency
A necessary correction to achieve the correct framing even if sometimes the meaning is the same.

The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 12:03:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Banks facing insolvency would be better.  Else they will accuse you of looking to go after marginal banks, you socialist.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer at eurotrib.com) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 02:01:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
this economic crisis is one of many interrelated ones

shifting the way we think & operate (individually, collectively) upward would be the intelligent and compassionate way

the current failure to seize opportunities, inherent in the economic crisis, exacerbates the other crises (climate, water, governance, migration, urbanization, conflict, raw materials, oil and gas, more)

thus exposing the systemic character of our predicament

as Western societies we're sort of underdeveloped regarding head-heart connections, preventing us from acting upon what we somewhere know we should do: make a serious effort into finding out how to serve 7 future generations of all species. And clean up our mess in the process: `suffer' the loss of conspicuous consumption, learn to appreciate important and even existential qualities now easily overlooked (`slow life' and `transition towns' amongst others)

what makes it so hard for us to make progress is that we focus on same level 'solutions' (more regulations & better oversight, better markets, better incentives, more money, clean cut between sober old style banks from high roller investment banks, whatever)

while we know that won't save our a$$.  But since we don't have a clue what else, onwards we go to a new iteration of what we're going through now. Given the building up of the other interrelated crises, the next iteration will be deeper, worse, possible causing irreparable damage in other crises-domains

smart nor compassionate

so, what does work?

shift up: reinforce the head-heart connections in order to find out that the fear, anxiety, sense of lack, existential separations we're trying to overcome are fundamentally illusory (as in http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ENG/loy12.htm)

that we always already were one and when we now look with at the `crises', they've become inevitable stepping stones towards larger circles of compassion. Opportunities to live lives based on love, instead of fear.

by emilmoller (emil@beyondthewalls.eu) on Sun May 17th, 2009 at 04:15:00 AM EST
think about banking.

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Sun May 17th, 2009 at 01:31:34 PM EST
I am thinking about Swedish banks. They had own crisis almost two decades ago, right? And recently they were pouring money to the Baltic real estate markets like mad. They surely knew what they were doing, not?
by das monde on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 04:43:55 AM EST
Blinded by greed...

And why be prudent just to make sure the bank is in good shape in the future (when you won't be working at it) when you can get massive bonuses yourself right now?

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 05:26:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
and the swedish pension funds, i read recently, (maybe here) are heavily invested in....canadian tar sands!

wtf?

"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do." Jim Hightower

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 11:51:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The swedish pension funds are a great investment to the banks running them as you have to choose some fund and fund managers always get paid. But I do believe the future pensioners would to date been better off saving the money in the mattress.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
by A swedish kind of death on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 01:18:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The big scandal is that the state pension funds (which you can't choose not to be a part of cause they are tax-financed) are in deep love with private equity.

So they take lots of money from taxpayers, give them to private equity who buy up Swedish companies, thrust upon them a debt burden huge enough to bankrupt them, and then take all the money and give it not to the pension funds but to the private equity executives in the form of giant fees.

It's truly perverted.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 11:05:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Heavily... I wouldn't say heavily. They own shares in pretty much all companies in the world, and of course that includes Shell, Statoil et al.

It's mainly a media thing, nothing to care much about.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 11:05:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
European Tribune - Green shoots: you'd better be grateful!
Taxpayers have poured trillions of dollars into institutions that most never knew they were guaranteeing. In return, economies look as if they have been spared a collapse in payment systems and credit flows that would probably have caused a depression.
That is a load of selfmaster-serving shit from The Economist. This is nothing that a number of well-timed bank interventions by the FDIC or equivalent banking regulators/deposit insurance schemes in other countries couldn't have solved.

What has been rescued here is (in this order):

  • Bank CEOs
  • Bank shareholders
  • Bank creditors (who happen to be other banks)

It there had at any point been a risk to the payment systems, something else would have been done. And the credit flows did collapse.

The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 05:39:50 AM EST
I'd partly change the order. The main beneficiaries are:

  1. bank creditors
  2. bank senior management (but probably not the CEOs themselves)
  3. bank shareholders

The protection of bank creditors (other banks, and bond holders) is the most scandalous subsidy, as it goes to (i) parties that should have known better and are not so protected when bankruptcy hits another industry (cf carmakers) and (ii) very wealthy parties (who owns bonds?)

Of course, people will say that pension funds own bonds, but saving pension systems did not require saving market-based mechanisms that had obviously failed, as JakeS regularly underlines.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 05:45:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeee. CEOs are being fired, not rescued - although most are leaving with the usual generous terms.

A lot of the creditors are hedge fiends. So this has been a direct transfer of cash from government to speculators - with little or no return for the taxpayers.

It doesn't even need to be said that after thirty years of being told that there's no government money for public services, it's something of a surprise to discover that trillions are available as a free gift to the money markets.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 05:52:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This being said their argument (the Obamists) has been that they had to rescue AIG (not a bank), or investment banks (not banks), or bank holding companies (which are not banks either). So they could not use FDIC (an insurance among banks, strictly banks).

To avoid nationalizations the US gov long used preferred shares. Now they have started to convert some to common shares,a Trojan Horse which I wellcome, because it is a backdoor to nationalization, long term.

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 06:17:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But they certainly did not have to rescue bank holding companies if the bank holding companies were not holding banks that were in trouble?

If a bank holding company is going down and that is threatening a healthy bank that they own, the solution is to take the healthy bank holding company into receivership to shelter it from the collapse.


Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 10:14:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
all the problem is from bank holding companies, which have been milking the banks with the hedge fiends. The Obamists have been deliberately confusing banks and bank holding companies. To protect rest of plutocracy. Basically as I have it in my incoming essay, they used the money making machine of banks to send all money to themselves and friends.
Exactly what the BANKINGA CT of 1933 wanted to terminate.
PA

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 02:23:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And this is a big part of why the "kill the bank, protect the banking operations" is nowhere near as complicated in most cases as it is made out to be ... go through the banks owned by the bank holding company, ensure that if dubious assets have been burrowed into their books, assets are shifted around so that they are solvent operations, and they can continue to operate under administration, with the balance of the junk assets and non-depository liabilities left with the bank holding company.

With the bank holding company disentangled from the payments system, it can simply go through bankruptcy like any other firm.

Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 03:36:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the gov has surrendered most of its civilian power to a few non elected individuals. Such is the mystery of the USA, explained.
(my main thesis in a few words)

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 06:21:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, but a funny thing is that hedge funds have gotten out of this a lot better than banks, because they've often had much less leverage. Often because banks have refused to give them too much leverage as they considered lots of leverage far too risky. Oh the irony...

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 09:16:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In Spain, the economic newspaper Expansión front-paged the following story last week with the headline "ZP insinuates there'll be a swoop of the hosepipe to help the cajas".  

Zapatero reconoce que las cajas sufrirán más la crisis que los bancos - (14-05-09) Expansión.comZapatero admits that the Cajas will suffer the crisis more than the banks - (14-05-09) Expansión.com
El presidente del Gobierno asegura que su objetivo no es la reestructuración de la banca, sino «salvar todo aquello que podamos del sistema financiero».The Prime Minister claims that his goal is not to restructure banking, but "to salvage everything we can of the financial system".
Si la semana pasada el Banco de España apuntaba que la crisis no afectará con la misma intensidad a todas las entidades bancarias, el presidente del Gobierno, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, fue ayer más preciso al apuntar a las cajas como las principales damnificadas del ajuste económico que vive España. «Es más fácil que sean cajas que bancos, se lo anticipo», subrayó durante su intervención en el debate sobre el estado de la Nación.If last week it was the Bank of Spain that pointed out that the crisis will not affect all the banking institutions with the same intensity, the Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero was yesterday more precise when he pointed at the cajas as the main victims of the economic adjustment Spain is living. "It is easier that it will be cajas than banks, I can anticipate", he stressed during his intervention in the State of the Nation debate.
Menos preciso fue, sin embargo, respecto a la posible reestructuración del sector. El presidente lanzó un par de mensajes que da alas a la teoría de que el Ejecutivo prepara una manguerazo o inyección indiscrimada de dinero público a las entidades, sin condiciones a cambio, al estilo de las medidas puestas en marcha por Sarkozy en Francia. Destacó que su objetivo no es la reestructuración de la banca española, sino «salvar todo aquello que podamos del sector financiero si se ve afectado», garantizando la competitividad de las entidades españolas en el futuro.He was, however, less precise regarding a possible restructuring of the sector. The president threw out a couple of messages which give wings to the theory that the Government is preparing a swoop of the hosepipe, an indiscriminate injection of public money into the entities, with no conditions, in the style of the measures set in motion by Sarkozy in France. He stressed that his goal is not the restructuring of Spanish banking, but "to salvage all that we can in the financial sector if it is affected", guaranteeing the future competitiveness of Spanish [credit] entities in the future.

Given that the cajas are quasi-public and intimately enmeshed with the political party system in Spain, it is maybe understandable that the government will rescue them. But it shouldn't be done. A few weeks ago Caja de Castilla-La Mancha was intervened by the banking regulator as any other insolvent institution should in the future, rather than being rescued with a swoop of the government's hosepipe.

The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 06:43:33 AM EST
What are exactly the "cajas"? "Caisses de retraite" as in France?
Note on Sarko: he had to backtrack, and talk as if he were to impose, after all, very strong limits on rescued bankers'incomes (I don't know if it's now law or decree, or what not...).

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 07:18:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
More like the Caisses d'Epargne / Sparkassen

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 07:31:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Aren't they called Caisse d'Épargne in France?

They are savings banks, but they are separately regulated as they are non-profit.

The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 08:41:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Anglo Disease strikes Germany too


La distribution inégale des patrimoines en Allemagne

Les inégalités de patrimoine se sont accrues entre 2002 et 2007 selon une étude du Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW, Institut allemand pour des recherches économiques) basée sur le panel socio économique (SOEP). Le décile le plus aisé de la population possède 61,1 % des biens privés, contre 57,8 % en 2002, tandis que 70 % des personnes moins aisées ne disposent que d'environ 9 %. Alors que les riches sont devenus plus riches, les moins bien lotis sont devenus plus pauvres ces dernières années en Allemagne.

Les raisons de cette évolution sont au moins en partie imputables à la réforme des droits de succession et de l'impôt sur le revenu du capital, qui favorise les plus aisés. En Allemagne, pour être allocataire du nouveau Arbeitslosengeld II (équivalent du RMI français), il faut avoir liquidé son épargne au préalable, une réforme qui est au détriment notamment des personnes âgées dans les nouveaux Länder, selon les chercheurs du DIW.

The most strikingnumber is the difference between average wealth (88,000 eruos) and median wealth (15,000 euros) - and the difference in rates of increase for each over the past 5 years.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 07:34:43 AM EST
We have an even greater difference between median and average wealth, because:

  1. Sweden has very generous tax rules for billionaires, while,

  2. The middle class has always been plundered by the soc dems (and granted, all the other parties) to make them utterly dependent on the welfare state, thereby increasing the power of the politicians over the lives of ordinary people.


Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 09:17:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Do you have the numbers?

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
by A swedish kind of death on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 09:33:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'll Google some, but IIRC the richest 1 % of all Americans control 30 % of all the capital in the country, while for Sweden that number is 40 %.

Ingvar Kamprad (owner of IKEA) is the third richest man in the world, you have the Rausing family, the Wallenberg family, and so on.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 09:47:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
    Richest 1 % of Swedes own more than 40 % of all Swedish capital.

:: ::

    30 % Swedes have no net wealth at all, 40 % have max 400 euros, 50 % have max 2800 euros.

Most equal wages in the world, extremely unequal distribution of wealth. Basic capital income discount right now, plz...

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 09:54:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Those numbers include home ownership by the way...

And of course, I meant: Basic capital income discount right now, plz...

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 09:59:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
To get at the number 40% they included a few rich swedish citizens living abroad. Though 32% is still pretty high. Though according to the article, the official statistics claim it is 19%, and without links to the different calculations I am hesitant to just accept one sides explanation of the difference.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
by A swedish kind of death on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 10:03:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not just living abroad, having their tax residence abroad. They might still live in Sweden, especially if they are really rich as the government won't mess with them then. Just remember how billionaires were legaly exempt from the wealth tax, which ordinary people had to pay.

(The wealth tax for ordinary people was removed by the new center-right government after they took power in the fall of 2006).

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 10:07:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Only the billionaires who owned more then X% of a company, worth more then Y SEK and founded their companies before Z date. Lesser billionaires were miffed.

Yeah, they could just as well have written the family names down and proclaimed them tax-exempt.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 10:24:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Privilege, privi-lege... people usually don't think about it, but it literally means "private law"...

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 10:42:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Starvid:
rivilege, privi-lege... people usually don't think about it, but it literally means "private law"...

Tax it.


Modern conservatives engage in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.Galbraith

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 04:16:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How?

I don't mean 'Using what methodologies?' I mean 'Using what political leverage?'

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 05:34:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There's no conventional way. Privileged turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

Modern conservatives engage in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.Galbraith
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 06:01:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Tax the privilege of not paying taxes?

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
by A swedish kind of death on Tue May 19th, 2009 at 09:32:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
See if you can find a source.

Sweden has a small group extremely rich, but at the same time always ends up at pretty equal in terms of income, like the Gini index. This does not have to be a contradiction, but raises questions.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 09:58:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Like Japan.
by Trond Ove on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 01:09:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, that's what I said. Equal salaries, extremely unequal distribution of wealth. Because being a small capital owner (or small business owner) has been heavily penalised in Sweden for a very long time. The time has come to change that.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 11:05:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]